- I = Showing that the characteristic defining the class (e.g., homosexuality) is an immutable trait
- h = Plaintiffs
Premise: Membership in a suspect class requires showing an immutable trait (SC → I).
Observation: Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that homosexuality is an immutable trait (/I).
Conclusion: Plaintiffs do not qualify as a suspect class (h/SC).
Logical Representation:
- Given: SC → I
- Observed: /I (Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that homosexuality is an immutable trait)
- Contrapositive: /I → /SC
- Concluded: h/SC
Argument Structure: The contrapositive form is used, where the failure to demonstrate the necessary condition (immutable trait, I) leads to the conclusion that the necessary outcome (membership in suspect class, SC) is not met.
The way I thought about it was visually with the circles. SC (suspect class) is the subset and I (immutable trait) as the super set. Given that the plaintiff did not demonstrate that homosexuality is an immutable trait, then you cannot put the member inside the superset and thus it can't be in the subset either. Therefore they fail the necessary condition.
I struggled with understanding the case, so I asked ChatGPT to simplify the case.
Explanation of Legal Context:
In legal terms, a "suspect class" refers to a group of people who, due to certain characteristics (like race or gender), are entitled to special protection under equal rights laws.
Key Points Simplified:
Condition for Suspect Class: For a group to be recognized as a suspect class, plaintiffs (those bringing the legal case) must prove that the defining characteristic of the group cannot be changed and is fundamental to their identity.
Lack of Supporting Evidence: The plaintiffs did not provide any evidence or references to support their argument that being homosexual is an unchangeable trait.
Court Decision: Because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that homosexuality meets the criteria of being immutable (unchangeable), the court decided not to classify them as a suspect class.
Hope this helps! (and hope there's no legal consequences for copying & pasting from ChatGPT!)
If sufficient conditions occur, necessary must occur. (To be a cat, you must be a mammal)
If a Necessary condition occurs, it doesn't mean sufficient occurred (it may or may not have occured). "You can be a mammal (NC) but not be a cat. (SC)"
AND if necessary doesn't occur, Sufficient CAN'T occur. "If you aren't a mammal, how can you be a cat?"
To qualify as a suspect class for purposes of equal protection analysis, plaintiffs must make a showing that the characteristic defining the class is an immutable trait. Plaintiffs have not cited any authority to support the conclusion that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic. The court therefore declines to find that plaintiffs constitute a suspect class.
In plain English. Plaintiff's argument hinges on being SC. Judge states "Say you are SC, it is necessarily true that you are contained in the superset (I) of people discriminated against based on an immutable characteristic".
SC -> I
Judge Argues:
"I do not have sufficient proof to say that being gay is an immutable characteristic"
I feel like this is still confusing to understand, any suggestions as there were a lot of words that can be confusing to understand? For every conditional argument, does there need to be a "/" (Not) aka a contrapositive section for all these arguments going forward?
My breakdown (Long winded, mainly for my self but feel free to read if it helps)
Suspect class is the sufficient condition here, and plaintiffs making a showing is the necessary condition.
Membership in the suspect class is sufficient to be part of the plaintiffs making a showing class, but it is not necessary as there are other ways that one can make a showing that the characteristic's defining the class is an immutable trait.
The reverse of this that helps me further understand is that: Membership in plaintiffs making a showing is necessary to be part of the suspect class (sufficient condition), but it is not good enough (sufficient) because there could be more things you need to check in order for you to get into that smaller bubble of the suspect class.
The second sentence is where we see the contrapositive of "X is not a member of set B". This is shown by the sentence saying "Plaintiffs have not cited any authority to support the conclusion that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic". Basically to be part of B we need to show that characteristic's defining the class are immutable, and then the second sentence say "well, you actually haven't shown any characteristic defining the class (homosexuality I think) as an immutable.
This is finally ties back into the final sentence in the form of "If not B (Superset) than not a member of A (Subset). How is this shown? The court basically said "oh you don't have membership in set B (the superset), so we cant give you membership into set A (The subset)
Membership in set B being characteristics to define the class as immutable, and membership in set A being to qualify as a suspect class
For everyone who is having trouble with breaking down contrapositive arguments, I suggest getting a white board where you can break everything down and really work through the argument a couple words at a time. I broke it down on my board and found this example to actually be really helpful in exposing us to what our future careers will entail. lol!
I got I -> SC because I read it as if it's an immutable trait, then they qualify for the suspect class. Can someone please explain better why it's SC -> I?
@Laylay when I read "plantiffs make a showing ...", i thought there could be a possibility for them not to qualify. It is necessary to "make a showing..", but that doesn't mean you qualify or suffice to qualify for equal protection analysis. Maybe the court doesn't like the reasoning you came up with.
@Danaizha Yeah after doing some more lessons I think I've got it now. So when I originally looked at I thought of it as you need an immutable trait to then qualify for the suspect class. That reasoning is correct but you cannot write it as I -> SC, because the immutable trait is the necessary condition so the necessary condition must go on the left of the arrow (so it should be SC -> I).
I see a lot of comments complaining about the complexity and the fact that there is no video. Don't give up! What helped me was identifying the conditional premise (the first sentence sets up the rules of the game, that's how I think through it), then seeing the author state we don't have the necessary condition (plaintiff makes a showing that X characteristic of Y class is an immutable trait), and thus it is not possible for us to have the sufficient condition as well (membership in suspect class).
I hope this helps, I may have messed up with the language of the premises so take that with a grain of salt. Keep at it guys and don't give up!!
If you can, study partners or even someone to talk to along this journey helps a ton.
I think I understood the concept of creating the lawgic equation, but I did use different characters instead of "SC" and "i". I used "EPA" for equal protection analysis and had it as my superset, set b, and I used "IT" for immutable trait and had it as my subset, set a. I put H for homosexuality and placed it outside of my superset. This was my equation.
IT---->EPA
H/EPA
_
H/IT
I might have been wrong, but I do think I understood what needed to be negated. The argument is saying if homosexuality is not a part of the equal protection analysis then it must not be an immutable trait. If I did something wrong, please reply and let me know what you think!!!!
Hey, I had the same thought process when I first attempted to solve this. After further reviewal, I see where I can improve on. For background context, I used EPA, IT, & H as well.
The reason SC is used rather than EPA is because the sentence focuses on the idea to qualify as a "suspected class", I find EPA is additional fluff & gets more specific to what we are talking about if that makes sense. EPA is still important of course, but in the overall picture, qualifying as a "suspected class" to get to EPA is the point.
In relation to IT, I recognize while in this situation one may be able to discern & figure out the encompassing meaning with just IT. In the long run, I find it's beneficial to understand why I refers to "plaintiff make a showing that homosexuality is an immutable trait". It's important to mentally include the whole sentence because the following sentence directly mentions how the plaintiffs have NOT cited any information, etc to show homosexuality as an immutable trait. When statements because more complex, I believe it will be important to understand this nuance.
Lastly, using h to refer to "homosexual plaintiffs" is something I suppose I am wondering if it's still okay to just use "homosexuality" since I don't find a major difference. I suppose it is more specific which can help when dealing with increasingly complex statements. I will continue to work on this & see if I see any notable improvements.
I agree, overall, at least for this question, the main idea of what is being said is understood. If I misunderstood something, y'all pls let me know.
I believe that may or may not be wrong, we just don't know given the closed universe of these arguments. SC must receive EP, as that is a categorical thing. EPA is an action as I see it, and you do not need to be a SC to have EPANALYSIS performed. The question would be if the SC gets EP, not equal protection analysis? I may be wrong as well, but this is how I saw the problem.
109 comments
This is how I understood it:
Symbols Defined:
- SC = Membership in suspect class
- I = Showing that the characteristic defining the class (e.g., homosexuality) is an immutable trait
- h = Plaintiffs
Premise: Membership in a suspect class requires showing an immutable trait (SC → I).
Observation: Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that homosexuality is an immutable trait (/I).
Conclusion: Plaintiffs do not qualify as a suspect class (h/SC).
Logical Representation:
- Given: SC → I
- Observed: /I (Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that homosexuality is an immutable trait)
- Contrapositive: /I → /SC
- Concluded: h/SC
Argument Structure: The contrapositive form is used, where the failure to demonstrate the necessary condition (immutable trait, I) leads to the conclusion that the necessary outcome (membership in suspect class, SC) is not met.
This helped me a lot.
The way I thought about it was visually with the circles. SC (suspect class) is the subset and I (immutable trait) as the super set. Given that the plaintiff did not demonstrate that homosexuality is an immutable trait, then you cannot put the member inside the superset and thus it can't be in the subset either. Therefore they fail the necessary condition.
Thanks Brady, this helped me put two and two together for sure.
For those ESL folks:
I struggled with understanding the case, so I asked ChatGPT to simplify the case.
Explanation of Legal Context:
In legal terms, a "suspect class" refers to a group of people who, due to certain characteristics (like race or gender), are entitled to special protection under equal rights laws.
Key Points Simplified:
Condition for Suspect Class: For a group to be recognized as a suspect class, plaintiffs (those bringing the legal case) must prove that the defining characteristic of the group cannot be changed and is fundamental to their identity.
Lack of Supporting Evidence: The plaintiffs did not provide any evidence or references to support their argument that being homosexual is an unchangeable trait.
Court Decision: Because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that homosexuality meets the criteria of being immutable (unchangeable), the court decided not to classify them as a suspect class.
Hope this helps! (and hope there's no legal consequences for copying & pasting from ChatGPT!)
This was very helpful! Thank you!
EFL here and I still needed this. "suspect class" is... an interesting choice of verbiage.
@AlenaKane thank you queen
@AlenaKane literally, thank you queen!
@AlenaKane u ate that so bad
@AlenaKane Fr u ate cuz I'm a visual learner and this saved me!
@AlenaKane great visual diva
#I dont understand...
Think of it this way,
If A, then B.
What would be the contrapositive?
If not B, then not A.
Why?
Because the rule states,
If sufficient conditions occur, necessary must occur. (To be a cat, you must be a mammal)
If a Necessary condition occurs, it doesn't mean sufficient occurred (it may or may not have occured). "You can be a mammal (NC) but not be a cat. (SC)"
AND if necessary doesn't occur, Sufficient CAN'T occur. "If you aren't a mammal, how can you be a cat?"
Now apply that to the example.
"Must" introduces the necessary condition.
SO it becomes...
To Qualify ----> Show characteristic
What if you don't show characteristics?
THEN you don't qualify.
Therefore it becomes...
/Show Characteristic----> /Qualify
I was beating myself up for confusing the sufficient and necessary in the first sentence.
The word "must" triggers the necessary.
This example helped me understand:
To enter the bar, you MUST be 21.
o If you are inside the bar--> you are 21
x If you are 21--> you are in the bar
yeah im cooked for sure
@KeziaH19 felt lol
@KeziaH19 girl me too
@KeziaH19 felt
I use the Speechify browser plug-in to read these lessons that don't have videos to me using Mr. Beast's voice. It's a trip.
I'm digesting the material but still need some practice.
I thought about it this way. Not sure if it's correct #feedback
Suspect class= SC
Immutable trait = I
Plaintiff= h
Premise 1:
SC -> I
Premise 2:
h /I
Conclusion:
h/SC
Contrapositive:
/I = /SC
If no immutable trait, no suspect class
Since plaintiff h has no immutable trait (h/I) then they can't be in suspect class (/SC).
To get into Harvard, you must submit an application.
This doesn't mean if you submit an application, you'll get into Harvard.
Harvard Student -> Submitted Application
To qualify as a suspect class for purposes of equal protection analysis, plaintiffs must make a showing that the characteristic defining the class is an immutable trait. Plaintiffs have not cited any authority to support the conclusion that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic. The court therefore declines to find that plaintiffs constitute a suspect class.
SC --> I
h/I
h/SC
i got it right omg!!! i feel so good
@mostxareyallyarezthusmostxarez SAME AHHHHH
In plain English. Plaintiff's argument hinges on being SC. Judge states "Say you are SC, it is necessarily true that you are contained in the superset (I) of people discriminated against based on an immutable characteristic".
SC -> I
Judge Argues:
"I do not have sufficient proof to say that being gay is an immutable characteristic"
and
Not providing evidence for I = /I
It follows that /I -> /SC
I cant believe I got hat right
I feel like this is still confusing to understand, any suggestions as there were a lot of words that can be confusing to understand? For every conditional argument, does there need to be a "/" (Not) aka a contrapositive section for all these arguments going forward?
My breakdown (Long winded, mainly for my self but feel free to read if it helps)
Suspect class is the sufficient condition here, and plaintiffs making a showing is the necessary condition.
Membership in the suspect class is sufficient to be part of the plaintiffs making a showing class, but it is not necessary as there are other ways that one can make a showing that the characteristic's defining the class is an immutable trait.
The reverse of this that helps me further understand is that: Membership in plaintiffs making a showing is necessary to be part of the suspect class (sufficient condition), but it is not good enough (sufficient) because there could be more things you need to check in order for you to get into that smaller bubble of the suspect class.
The second sentence is where we see the contrapositive of "X is not a member of set B". This is shown by the sentence saying "Plaintiffs have not cited any authority to support the conclusion that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic". Basically to be part of B we need to show that characteristic's defining the class are immutable, and then the second sentence say "well, you actually haven't shown any characteristic defining the class (homosexuality I think) as an immutable.
This is finally ties back into the final sentence in the form of "If not B (Superset) than not a member of A (Subset). How is this shown? The court basically said "oh you don't have membership in set B (the superset), so we cant give you membership into set A (The subset)
Membership in set B being characteristics to define the class as immutable, and membership in set A being to qualify as a suspect class
In order to be a rock climber, one must be an athlete. One is not an athlete, therefore one is not a rock climber.
@DrewBecker If R --> A. /A, therefore /R
For everyone who is having trouble with breaking down contrapositive arguments, I suggest getting a white board where you can break everything down and really work through the argument a couple words at a time. I broke it down on my board and found this example to actually be really helpful in exposing us to what our future careers will entail. lol!
I hope that when I return to this in a bit, it will make more sense...
I got I -> SC because I read it as if it's an immutable trait, then they qualify for the suspect class. Can someone please explain better why it's SC -> I?
@Laylay when I read "plantiffs make a showing ...", i thought there could be a possibility for them not to qualify. It is necessary to "make a showing..", but that doesn't mean you qualify or suffice to qualify for equal protection analysis. Maybe the court doesn't like the reasoning you came up with.
@Danaizha Yeah after doing some more lessons I think I've got it now. So when I originally looked at I thought of it as you need an immutable trait to then qualify for the suspect class. That reasoning is correct but you cannot write it as I -> SC, because the immutable trait is the necessary condition so the necessary condition must go on the left of the arrow (so it should be SC -> I).
@Laylay i thought necessary condition was always in the right?
I see a lot of comments complaining about the complexity and the fact that there is no video. Don't give up! What helped me was identifying the conditional premise (the first sentence sets up the rules of the game, that's how I think through it), then seeing the author state we don't have the necessary condition (plaintiff makes a showing that X characteristic of Y class is an immutable trait), and thus it is not possible for us to have the sufficient condition as well (membership in suspect class).
I hope this helps, I may have messed up with the language of the premises so take that with a grain of salt. Keep at it guys and don't give up!!
If you can, study partners or even someone to talk to along this journey helps a ton.
hi, is there a place on the site in which I can practice these?
I think I understood the concept of creating the lawgic equation, but I did use different characters instead of "SC" and "i". I used "EPA" for equal protection analysis and had it as my superset, set b, and I used "IT" for immutable trait and had it as my subset, set a. I put H for homosexuality and placed it outside of my superset. This was my equation.
IT---->EPA
H/EPA
_
H/IT
I might have been wrong, but I do think I understood what needed to be negated. The argument is saying if homosexuality is not a part of the equal protection analysis then it must not be an immutable trait. If I did something wrong, please reply and let me know what you think!!!!
Hey, I had the same thought process when I first attempted to solve this. After further reviewal, I see where I can improve on. For background context, I used EPA, IT, & H as well.
The reason SC is used rather than EPA is because the sentence focuses on the idea to qualify as a "suspected class", I find EPA is additional fluff & gets more specific to what we are talking about if that makes sense. EPA is still important of course, but in the overall picture, qualifying as a "suspected class" to get to EPA is the point.
In relation to IT, I recognize while in this situation one may be able to discern & figure out the encompassing meaning with just IT. In the long run, I find it's beneficial to understand why I refers to "plaintiff make a showing that homosexuality is an immutable trait". It's important to mentally include the whole sentence because the following sentence directly mentions how the plaintiffs have NOT cited any information, etc to show homosexuality as an immutable trait. When statements because more complex, I believe it will be important to understand this nuance.
Lastly, using h to refer to "homosexual plaintiffs" is something I suppose I am wondering if it's still okay to just use "homosexuality" since I don't find a major difference. I suppose it is more specific which can help when dealing with increasingly complex statements. I will continue to work on this & see if I see any notable improvements.
I agree, overall, at least for this question, the main idea of what is being said is understood. If I misunderstood something, y'all pls let me know.
I believe that may or may not be wrong, we just don't know given the closed universe of these arguments. SC must receive EP, as that is a categorical thing. EPA is an action as I see it, and you do not need to be a SC to have EPANALYSIS performed. The question would be if the SC gets EP, not equal protection analysis? I may be wrong as well, but this is how I saw the problem.
why no video explanation? way more helpful
omg yeah I thought it just wasn't loading
Yeah idk what’s going on but making me sad I had it’s more videos along the way